SMT.PARVATEWWA W/O. CHANNAPPAGOUDA PATIL vs SRI.BASANAGOUDA S/O. IRANAGOUDA PATIL
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100072 OF 2019 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.PARVATEWWA
W/O. CHANNAPPAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE:79 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MURAKATNAL,
POST: HIREKOPPA K.S.,
TAL:RAMADURG,
DIST:BELAGAVI – 590 001.
2. SRI BASANAGOUDA
S/O. CHANNAPPAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE:69 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MURAKATNAL,
POST:HIREKOPPA K.S.,
TAL:RAMADURG,
DIST:BELAGAVI – 590 001.
3. SRI KALLANAGOUDA
S/O. CHANNAPPAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MURAKATNAL,
POST:HIREKOPPA K.S.,
TAL:RAMADURG,
DIST:BELAGAVI – 590 001.
4. SRI SIDDANAGOUDA
S/O. CHANNAPPAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MURAKATNAL,
POST:HIREKOPPA K.S.,
TAL:RAMADURG,
DIST:BELAGAVI – 590 001.
5. SRI IRANAGOUDA
S/O. CHANNAPPAGOUDA PATIL,
Digitally
signed by
BHARATHI
H M
Date:
2026.11.06
12:40:20
+0530
BHARATHI
H M
- 2 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MURAKATNAL,
POST:HIREKOPPA K.S.,
TAL: RAMADURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR A1, A3,
A4; SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR A2 & A5)
AND:
SRI BASANAGOUDA S/O. IRANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MURAKATNAL,
NOW RESIDING AT MUGALIHAL,
TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.11.2018
PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI
IN R.A.NO.182/2018 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 30.06.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMADURG IN O.S.NO.33/2015 BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
05.08.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
- 3 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
CAV JUDGMENT
The defendants in OS No.33/2015 on the file of
learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramdurg have preferred this
regular second appeal.
2. The plaintiff namely Sri Basanagouda filed the
suit in OS No.33/2015 for the relief of partition and
separate possession claiming half share in five items of
properties situated in Murakatnal Village of Ramdurg
Taluk. The case of the plaintiff is that the parties to the
suit are the joint family members and bahubands. The
plaintiff claims that the suit properties are the agricultural
lands granted as patilki inam lands, which were originally
held and possessed by their ancestor namely Sri
Ninganagouda Patil, the propositus of the family. It is
stated that the propositus dies leaving behind two sons
namely Baganagouda and Tammanagouda, who acquired
the suit lands as the legal heirs of the propositus. It is
further stated that Baganagouda had three children by
name, (i) Channappagouda, who is the husband of
Defendant No.1 and father of the Defendants No.2 to 5,
(ii) Iranagouda, the father of the plaintiff and (iii)
- 4 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
Shivanagouda @ Shivarayagouda. It is stated that
Shivanagouda and his wife Thippavva died issueless.
According to the plaintiff Baganagounda and
Tammanagouda got separated by a family arrangement as
per M.E. No.73 and that in such family arrangement the
suit properties fell to the share of Baganagouda and
names of his three children came to be entered in the
revenue records. It is contended that Channappagouda
was the manager of the family and as such his namely
alone came to be entered in the revenue records though
Channappagouda and Iranagouda were having equal share
in the suit properties. The plaintiff stated that his parents
died at his early age and he was brought up by his uncle -
Channappagouda. It is stated that after the marriage of
the plaintiff and Defendants No.2 to 5 there were
differences in the family and as such Channappagouda
advised the plaintiff to cultivate his half share till the
actual partition takes place. The plaintiff alleged that after
the death of Channappagouda, the defendants tried to
disturb his joint possession and when he defended his
legitimate share in the suit properties, the defendants
- 5 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
flatly refused to allot his share. The plaintiff stated that on
issuance of legal notice, the defendant gave evasive reply
denying his share and as such he was constrained to file
the suit.
3. On service of the summons, all the defendants
appeared before the trial court through their Counsel.
Defendant No.2 filed his written statement and same was
adopted by other defendants. The defendants contended
that the suit properties were the patilki inam lands and
that as per watan law in Mumbai State, the suit lands were
re-granted in the name of Basanagouda. They claimed
that as per the rule of primogeniture, Channappagouda
became the absolute owner of the suit properties and that
his younger brother namely Iranagouda did not get any
right in those properties. Thus, they contended that the
plaintiff has not right over the suit properties and prayed
for dismissal of the suit.
4. The trial court, based on the pleadings of the
parties, framed the following issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, he along with
defendants constitute a joint Hindu family?
- 6 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that, the suit
properties are the joint family properties of the
plaintiff and defendants?
3) Whether defendants prove that, the suit
properties are the self-acquired properties of
Channappagouda, as contended in para 14 of
the Written statement?
4) Whether the suit is barred by the limitation?
5) Whether the plaintiff further proves that, he is
entitled for half share in the suit properties?
6) What order or decree?
5. During the trial, the plaintiff got examined as
PW-1, examined one more witness and got marked
documents as Exs.P1 to P19. On behalf of the defendants,
Defendant No.2 adduced the evidence as DW-1 and
examined three more witnesses. Amongst these
witnesses, DW-4 did not tender for cross examination.
Hence, the trial court discarded the evidence of DW-4.
6. Afterwards, the trial court heard the arguments
of both sides, considered the evidence placed on record
and decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled to
half share in the suit properties. The trial court held that
the suit properties were acquired by Channappagouda for
- 7 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
and on behalf the family consisting of him and his brother
and hence the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit
properties in the absence of any partition between
Channappagouda and his brother Iranagouda, the father
of the plaintiff.
7. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred the
appeal in RA No.182/2018. The first appellate court, after
re-appreciating the materials on record, concurred with
the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the
appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants directed this
regular second appeal.
8. On 25.07.2019 this Court admitted the appeal
to consider the following substantial questions of law:
“(i) Whether the Courts below are justified in
decreeing the suit of the plaintiff without there
being any iota of evidence to show that at any
point of time the suit properties stood in the
name of the ancestors?
(ii) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in
holding that the documents as additional
evidence are not required for adjudication of the
dispute?”
- 8 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
9. Sri Srinand A. Pachhapure, learned Counsel for
Defendants submitted that the suit properties are patilki
inam lands, governed by the Karnataka Village Abolition
Act, 1961. He further submitted that according to the
plaintiff the suit properties were originally held and
possessed by the ancestors of the family namely Sri
Ninganagouda Patil and thereafter by his two sons, i.e.,
Baganagouda Patil and Tammanagouda Patil. He
vehemently contended that there is no record to show that
the suit properties ever stood in the name of Sri
Ninganagouda Patil or that he officiated as a holder of
patilki inam. He also submitted that there is no record to
show that Baganagouda succeeded to the office of patilki
inam. On the other hand, he stated that the records show
that Channappagouda, Venkanagouda and Fakirgouda
were the holders of the office and holding the lands in
their individual capacity. He contended that if the case of
the plaintiff is believed that there was no severance of
joint family between Baganagouda and Tammanagouda,
only Channappagouda would have succeeded as the holder
of the office. He submitted that the finding of the courts
- 9 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
below that M.E. No.73 evidences the partition between the
branch of Baganagouda and Tammanagouda is totally
erroneous. He further submitted that admittedly the father
of the plaintiff was never holder of the office and as he
was a convict, the father of the plaintiff was never in
possession of the suit properties. He also submitted that
though the father of the plaintiff was alive till 1973, he had
not questioned the mutation entries standing in the name
of Channappagouda for around 50 years. He submitted
that the stray entry in the revenue records such as
purvarjitha is without any mutation entry. Hence, he
contended that the impugned judgment and decrees needs
interference at the hands of this Court.
10. Per contra, Sri S. B. Doddagoudar, learned
Counsel for the Plaintiff vigorously submitted that ME
No.73 effected in the year 1953-54 indicates share given
to Tammanagouda. He submitted that the defendants
have not disputed the relationship between the parties to
the proceeding and that the defendants are ignorant about
the source of acquisition of the suit properties. He
submitted that after the abolition of watan or Inam, when
- 10 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
a re-grant of land was made to the watandar, the
properties come back to the whole body of the joint family
and it enures to the benefit of the whole family of the
watandar. In view of the same, he supported the findings
recorded by the courts below and justified its conclusion.
11. The pleadings of the parties to the suit make it
clear that they are not at serious dispute regarding their
inter-se relationship. One Sri Ninganagouda Patil was the
propositus of the family. He had two sons namely,
Baganagouda and Tammanagouda. Baganagouda had
three sons, i.e., Channappagouda, Iranagouda and
Shivanagouda @ Shivarayagouda. Tammanagouda had
two sons namely, Fakirgouda and Venkanagouda. The
plaintiff is the son of Iranagouda. Defendants No.1 to 5
are the wife and children of Channappagouda.
Shivanagouda and his wife Smt. Thippavva said to be died
issueless. It is stated that the sons of Tammanagouda,
i.e., Fakirgouda and Venkanagouda died issueless. The
branch of Tammanagouda is not a party of the suit.
- 11 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
12. The plaintiff maintained the suit claiming his
half share in lands bearing Sy.Nos.1/2 measuring 2.30
acres, 1/5 measuring 2.10 acres, 4/2 measuring 8.35
acres, 24/2 measuring 15.10 acres and 29/5 measuring
9.26 acres situated in Murakatnal Village of Ramdurg
Taluk. Admittedly, these lands were patilki inam lands and
these lands came to be re-granted in the name of
Channappagouda during the year 1984.
13. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit
properties originally held and possessed by Sri
Ninganagouda Patil and that on his death, his two sons
namely Baganagouda and Tammanagouda acquired those
properties as the legal heirs of Ninganagouda Patil. The
plaintiff contends that Baganagouda and his brother lived
together by enjoying the joint family properties and they
never separated during their life time. He further contends
that even after the death of Baganagounda and
Tammanagouda, their family members lived together in a
common family and that Channappagouda being the eldest
of all was managing the affairs of the family. It is stated
that subsequently the families of Baganagouda and
- 12 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
Tammanagouda separated under a family arrangement
and settlement arrived at between Channappagouda and
Fakirgouda. It is stated that under such an arrangement
the suit properties fell to the share of three children of
Baganagouda, which came to be entered in the name of
Channappagouda as the kartha of the family.
14. On the other hand, though the defendants
admitted that the plaintiff is their blood relative
(bahubanda) they contended that he was not a coparcener
and that there was no joint family as contended by the
plaintiff. They further contended that Channappagouda
alone had the right of enjoying the suit properties in the
capacity of Inamdar by doing patilki work since 1954.
Thus, they contended that the father of the plaintiff
namely Iranagouda had no right over the suit properties.
15. In para 10 of the written statement, Defendant
No.2 has pleaded as under:
“
ªÁ¢AiÉÄà ºÉüÀĪÀAvÉ ¥ÁnîQ E£ÁªÀÄ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀÄÝ ªÀÄ£ÉvÀ£ÀzÀ »gÉÃ
ªÀÄUÀ¤UÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ DvÀ£Éà E£ÁªÀÄzÁgÀ £ÁvÉìÄAzÁ ¥ÁnîQ
PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G¥À¨sÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ C¢üPÁgÀ »A¢£À
”
ªÀÄÄA§¬Ä ªÀvÀ£À PÁAiÉÄÝ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ EzÀÝzÀgÀÄjAzÀ ZÀ£ÀߥÀàUËqÀ ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀiÁ®PÀ£ÁUÀÄvÁÛ£É.
- 13 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
The above extract makes it clear that the defendants
admit the contention of the plaintiff that the suit lands
were originally held and possessed by their ancestor
namely Sri Ninganagouda Patil and that after his death
those lands were succeeded/inherited by his legal heirs.
16. The defendants are disputing the plaintiff’s
claim for share in the suit properties mainly on the ground
that those lands were patilki inam lands and
Channappagouda being the Inamdar and re-grantee, the
suit properties were his exclusive properties.
17. The position of law as to the right of members
of a joint Hindu family with regard to the village offices is
well settled. In Shivappa Fakirappa Shetsanadi Vs
Kannappa Mallappa Shetsanadi, reported in ILR 1987
KAR 3155, the Division Bench of this Court, while dealing
an appeal related to a suit for declaration and
consequential injunction based on re-grant in the name of
the person officiating as Shet Sanadi, after referring to the
decisions in Pushpavathi Viziaram Gajapathi Raj Vs
Pushpavathi Visweswara Gajapathi Raj (AIR 1964 SC 118),
- 14 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
Rajah Velugoti Kumar Krishna Yachendra Varu Vs Rajah
Velugoti Sarvagna Kumara Krishna Yachendra Varu (AIR
1970 SC 1795), Nagesh Bisto Vs Khando Tirmal (AIR 1982
SC 887) and other decisions, held as under:
“12. …… An ‘interest in the village office’ means and
includes the right of survivorship of a member of a joint
family. In other words, a member of a joint family even
though he may belong to a junior branch, has a right to
succeed to the office In the event none is available in
the senior branch to succeed to the office. This right of
survivorship is, as already pointed out, one of the four
rights of the members of the Hindu Joint Family in
respect of a joint family property. Thus' the result of
the aforesaid discussion is that the inferior village office
which was granted to the great-grand-father of the
parties and the suit land which was annexed to the said
office, on abolition of the village office and resumption
of the suit land as a consequence of abolition of the
village office became available for regrant under
Section 5 of the Act. The plaintiff, who was officiating
as Shet-Sanadi immediately prior to the appointed date
became entitled to have the suit land regranted as per
Section 5 of the Act Accordingly the regrant has been
made in his name. But the village office and the suit
land annexed to it did tot cease to be the joint family
property nor there is any evidence to show that the
junior members of the family i.e., the defendants, ever
relinquished their right either in the village office or in
the suit land so as to make the village office and the
land annexed to it, the exclusive property of the
plaintiff or his father. Thus the village office and the
land annexed to it continued to be the joint family
property till the appointed date on which date the
village office was abolished and the land annexed to it
was resumed.
13. The next question for consideration is, whether
in view of the fact that the suit land has been regranted
in the name of the plaintiff, the defendants are
deprived of their right to claim partition and separate
possession of the suit property. The Learned Trial
Judge has held that as the suit land has been regranted
- 15 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
to the plaintiff the contention of the defendants that
they are entitled to have a share in it does not survive
because the plaintiff's father was the officiator and
after his death, the plaintiff became the officiator. The
learned trial Judge has further held that as the land
had vested in the State Government, it had every right
to regrant the land to the persons considered as
eligible and that the regrant order cannot be assailed in
the Civil Court. To say the least, the trial Judge has
proceeded on a wrong assumption. In fact, the right to
seek partition in the suit land accrued to the
defendants only after the regrant. Until the abolition of
the village office and resumption of the suit land
annexed to the village office, the suit land was to go
along with the village office and as such it was not
available for partition. After the abolition of the village
office and resumption of the suit land, it became a
ryotwari land only on regrant and as such it was then
that the suit land came to be released from the nature
of its impartibility.
14. In Nagesh Bisto's case the Supreme Court has
held that the members of a Joint Hindu Family must be
regarded as holders of the watan land along with the
watandar for the time being and therefore, the regrant
of the lands to the watandar under Sub - section (1) of
Section 4 of the Act (Bombay Act No. 60/1950) and
under Section 3 of Bombay Act No.22/1955 must enure
to the benefit of the entire Joint Hindu Family. The
definition of the expressions 'holder of a village office'
or 'holder' means a person having an interest in the
said office under an existing law relating to such office
and the expression "existing law relating to a village
office" includes any enactment, ordinance, rule, bye-
law, regulation, order, notification, firman, hukum, vat
hukum or any other instrument or any custom or usage
having the force of law relating to a village office which
may be in force immediately before the appointed date
[Section 2(f)]. The village office in question was
governed by the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act which
did not exclude the members of the joint family from
succeeding to the office in the event of non-availability
of a member in the senior branch of the family to
succeed to the village office. Thus she law governing
the village office on the appointed date did not prohibit
the junior branches succeeding to the village office in
the event of non-availability of a member to succeed to
the village office in the senior branch. It is this right
which is called the 'right of survivorship' which is one of
- 16 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
the rights of the members of the Joint Hindu family. It
is this right which is not excluded by the Act.
Therefore, the junior members of the family had an
interest in the village office and as such they must also
be considered as 'holders of the village office' in
question. It is this right which indicated the interest of
the junior members of the family in a village office
under an existing law relating to such office. The
regrant was made in the name of the plaintiff under
Section 5 of the Act because he was a person who was
a holder of a village office immediately prior to the
appointed date. Such a regrant did not take away the
right of the junior members to seek partition in the suit
land as per their personal law. That being the position,
the Learned Trial Judge is not right in holding that the
plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the suit land because
it has been regranted to him.”
18. Similarly, in Imamsa Chandas Gurikar and Ors.
Vs Mohdinsa Nabisa Gurikar, reported in
MANU/KA/3559/2017 and Shri Janbeg Shamasher
Jamadar Since Deceased by his LRs. And Others Vs Rasul
Balu Jamadar Since Deceased by his LRS (NC: 2023:KHC-
D:7915), the co-ordinate benches of this Court while
dealing with the question of the rights of family members
in the land re-granted under the provisions of Karnataka
Village Offices Abolition Act held that the grant of watan to
the eldest member of a family would not make him the
exclusive owner of the watan properties and that watan
property has always been treated as property belonging to
the family and all persons belonging to the watan family
- 17 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
who had a hereditary interest in such watan property and
were entitled to the watandars of the same watan within
the meaning of Watan Act were entitled to a share in such
property once is ceased to be impartible. In the light of
above decisions, it is crystal clear that the defendants
cannot assert exclusive right of Channappagouda over the
suit properties merely on the ground that those lands
came to be re-granted in his name.
19. The defendants are challenging the impugned
judgment and decree of the courts below even on the
ground that the plaintiff has not adduced any iota of
evidence to show that at any point of time the suit
properties stood in the name of their ancestors. As noted
above, the Defendant No.2 in his written statement has
categorically contended that the patilki inam lands are
concerned only to the eldest son of the family as he alone
got the right to do patilki work as Inamdar. The said
contention of the defendants coupled with the suggestions
made during the cross-examination of the plaintiff and his
witness clearly go to show that the defendants admit
- 18 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
Channappagouda having succeeded to such right from his
ancestors.
20. It is the definite case of the plaintiff that the
family was joint during the lifetime of Baganagouda and
Tammanagouda, the sons of propositus namely Sri
Ninganagouda Patil. According to the plaintiff the families
of Baganagouda and Tammanagouda got separated under
a family arrangement and settlement effected between
Channappagouda, who represented the family of
Baganagouda and Fakirgouda, who represented the family
of Tammanagouda. It is contended that in such family
arrangement the suit properties fell to the share of three
children of Baganagouda and came to be entered in the
name of Channappagouda as certified the revenue
authorities in M.E. No.73 of Murakatnal Village. The
defendants have not disputed the partition affected
between Channappagouda and Fakirgouda. However, they
contended that the suit properties allotted to
Channappagouda under such an arrangement exclusively
belonged to him and that M.E. No.73 does not mention
that he represented the branch of Baganagouda as the
- 19 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
manager of the joint family. It is true that M.E. No.73 only
refers to the partition affected between Channappagouda
and Fakirgouda.
21. Undisputedly, Channappagouda was the eldest
amongst the three children of Baganagouda. Similarly,
Fakirgouda was the eldest amongst two children of
Tammanagouda. If we appreciate the partition effected
between Channappagouda and Fakirgouda in the
background of the acquisition of the properties through
their ancestors i.e., Sri Ninganagouda Patil and his two
sons namely Baganagouda and Tammanagouda, then it is
to be held that it was a family arrangement or division
affected between two eldest members of the family,
representing the branches of Baganagouda and
Tammanagounda respectively, as contended by the
plaintiff. The materials on record probabilize such
contention of the plaintiff than the defense put forth by the
defendants.
22. The other contention of the defendants is that
Channappagouda, Venkanagouda and Fakirgouda were
- 20 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
holding the office and holding the lands in their individual
capacity. However, the defendants have not adduced any
evidence before the courts below to substantiate this
contention.
23. The defendants have tried to dispute the claim
of the plaintiff on the ground that his father namely
Iranagouda was never in possession of the suit lands with
Channappagouda. In this regard they are relying on the
averments of the plaint that Iranagouda was in jail as a
convict and that Iranagouda did not claim his right over
the suit properties till his death around 1973. Admittedly,
Iranagouda was a convict in a murder case and he was in
jail for about 25 years. Further, the plaintiff has not
produced any documentary evidence before the courts
below to show that his father was cultivating the suit
properties along with Channappagouda, after his release
from prison. It is also admitted that the parents of the
plaintiff died when he was very young. The plaintiff
claimed that he was brought up and looked after by
Channappagouda. However, he did not produce any
supporting document before the court. Consequently, the
- 21 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
evidence is insufficient to support the plaintiff’s claim of
his actual possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
In the considered view of this Court the above aspect has
no bearing on the claim of the plaintiff. It is a well settled
principle of law that the possession of a joint family
property by one co-sharer is construed as possession for
and on behalf of all the family members. The plaintiff has
proved that the suit properties are the ancestral and joint
family properties, succeeded from the propositus namely
Sri Ninganagouda Patil. Hence, this Court finds no merit in
the objection raised by the defendants disputing the
plaintiff’s claim for share in the suit properties on account
of his failure to produce documentary evidence to support
the joint possession and enjoyment over the suit
properties.
24. The defendants have also challenged the
correctness of the approach adopted by the first appellate
court in dismissing their application for permission to
adduce additional evidence in the case. The case papers
reveal that the defendants had filed an application before
the first appellate court under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC
- 22 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
praying for permission to produce additional documents
such as the certified copy of inam register pertaining to
the suit lands, the letter of the Tahashildar, Ramdurga
addressed to the Village Accountant of Murkatnal and the
voters’ list of Mugalihal Village pertaining to the plaintiff
and his witness. The first appellate court rejected the said
application on the ground that there is no dispute that the
suit properties were patilki inam lands and that those
lands were re-granted in the name of Channappagouda. It
observed that the only question involved in the case is
whether such grant was exclusively in favour of
Channappagouda or it enures to the benefit of entire
family. The first appellate court noted that the documents
sought to be produced by the defendants reiterate the
facts which are not at all in dispute and those materials
are not required to decide the appeal. The defendants
have not disputed the correctness of these findings
recorded by the first appellate court. Hence, this Court
finds no error committed by the first appellate court in
rejecting the permission to produce additional documents.
- 23 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
25. The courts below, based on the pleadings of the
parties and the evidence placed on record, held that the
re-grant of suit lands in the name of Channappagouda
enures to the benefit of the entire family and that during
the partition affected between Channappagouda and
Fakirgouda, the suit properties were allotted to the branch
of Baganagouda. In these circumstances, the courts below
held that the plaintiff being the son of Iranagouda, the
brother of Channappagouda, is entitled to half share in the
suit properties. The courts below have concurrently
recorded these factual findings. This Court finds no
perversity in such conclusion of the courts below. As noted
above, the defendants in their pleading categorically
admitted the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties
were the ancestral properties. The contentions/
suggestions of the defendants during the trial of the case
indicate their admission that the suit properties were the
properties succeeded from the ancestors. Hence, this
Court holds that the courts below were justified in
decreeing the suit of the plaintiff even in the absence of
any document to show that the suit properties stood in the
- 24 -
RSA No. 100072 of 2019
name of the ancestors. For the foregoing reasons, the
substantial questions of law framed by this Court at (i) and
(ii) are answered in the affirmative.
26. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
dismissed
The regular second appeal is .
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed as
they do not survive for consideration.
SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
ASN/RH
CT-ASC